Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 271(1)(c) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 of the 25,141 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c)

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT
328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court
1,183
citing judgments

Rule 8D, for computing disallowance under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income, applies from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards; for prior years, a reasonable disallowance must be made. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · Supreme Court
953
citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Ashok Pai v. CIT
292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court
812
citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court
791
citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court
694
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT
434 ITR 1 · 2021 · High Court
672
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify the exact charge by not striking off the irrelevant limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income). Such an omnibus or vague notice renders the penalty proceedings bad in law, and any penalty imposed on its basis is liable to be quashed.

Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT
124 ITR 1 · 1980 · Supreme Court
622
citing judgments

Expenditure is classified as revenue or capital based on its practical business effect, necessity, or expediency, rather than solely on the juristic classification of rights; an enduring benefit does not automatically make an expenditure capital if it facilitates trading operations or business efficiency.

Dilip N. Shroff v. JCIT
291 ITR 519 · 2007 · Supreme Court
565
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if the Assessing Officer fails to strike out the inapplicable limb (concealment or furnishing inaccurate particulars) from the standard proforma, indicating non-application of mind. The initial burden of proving concealment or inaccurate particulars rests on the Revenue.

Judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

Vishwanath Kadia Shetty, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 22(3), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 122/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 121 & 122/Mum/2023 (A.Ys.2012-13 & 2014-15) Vishwanath Kadia Shetty Vs. Acit, Circle 22(3) 501, St. Sebestian Piramal Chamber, Classic, Road No.3, Lower Parel, Sunder Nagar, Kalina, Mumbai – 400 013 Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400 098 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadps5744G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Haridas Bhat Respondent By : Shri Bharat Andhale Date Of Hearing 13.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Nfac, Delhi, Dated 26.12.2022. Since Common Issue On Identical Facts Are Involved In These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking Ita No. 121/Mum/2023 As Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied To Ita No. 122/Mum/2023 Mutatis Mutandis. “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case & In Law The Ld. Comm Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Passing The Order U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Affording Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard.

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Section 148Section 2(47)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

Vishwanath Kadia Shetty, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward-22(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 121/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 121 & 122/Mum/2023 (A.Ys.2012-13 & 2014-15) Vishwanath Kadia Shetty Vs. Acit, Circle 22(3) 501, St. Sebestian Piramal Chamber, Classic, Road No.3, Lower Parel, Sunder Nagar, Kalina, Mumbai – 400 013 Santacruz East, Mumbai – 400 098 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadps5744G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Haridas Bhat Respondent By : Shri Bharat Andhale Date Of Hearing 13.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Nfac, Delhi, Dated 26.12.2022. Since Common Issue On Identical Facts Are Involved In These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Therefore, These Appeals Are Adjudicated Together By Taking Ita No. 121/Mum/2023 As Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied To Ita No. 122/Mum/2023 Mutatis Mutandis. “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Appellant'S Case & In Law The Ld. Comm Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Passing The Order U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Without Affording Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard.

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhatFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Section 148Section 2(47)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C